That's called rolling shutter effect. It appears because frame is not exposed completely at once - rather shutter moves across the frame briefly exposing different parts of image. This means different part of frame are actually exposed at different time and result high speed object will move between those exposures.

The early Indy 500 photos are especially extreme at this - the shutter would open from bottom to top and the distortion could be massive. I recall one particular pic of Ray Harroun where the wheels looked like they were leaning forward at a ludicrous angle. As Mr Harroun paced himself at a mere (by today's standards) 75mph throughout, the photographer presumably wasn't using the shutter priority setting correctly.

What's the purpose of Parc Ferme rules, or whatever they're called that prevent changing setups between qualifying sessions and between qualifying -> race? If F1 is a team sport, then if you remove those rules you get the mechanics and strategists more involved so you can truly find out which team is better.

What's the purpose of Parc Ferme rules, or whatever they're called that prevent changing setups between qualifying sessions and between qualifying -> race? If F1 is a team sport, then if you remove those rules you get the mechanics and strategists more involved so you can truly find out which team is better.

Parc Fermé always exists in motorsport, but the time of Parc Fermé varies.

F1 introduced the Parc Fermé overnoght between qualifying and race rule to stop teams working their staff 24 hours a day the whole race weekend, to make teams having to do with less staff on the race weekends to save costs, cost saving because teams used to have purpose built qualifying cars. They now also have the curfew rule since a few years back where team personell are not allowed to be at the track during the night. For the same reason - teams were working their staff hard and it was seen to be a problem.

Parc Fermé always exists in motorsport, but the time of Parc Fermé varies.

F1 introduced the Parc Fermé overnoght between qualifying and race rule to stop teams working their staff 24 hours a day the whole race weekend, to make teams having to do with less staff on the race weekends to save costs, cost saving because teams used to have purpose built qualifying cars. They now also have the curfew rule since a few years back where team personell are not allowed to be at the track during the night. For the same reason - teams were working their staff hard and it was seen to be a problem.

The rule that mandated that the cars should be in parc fermé conditions between qualifying and the race was also introduced at the same time (2003) as one-lap qualifying, and naturally the parc fermé situation demanded that the cars would do their qualifying run with race fuel on board, which of course varied from driver to driver, thus mixing up the grid somewhat in a successful attempt to produce a more exciting season than had taken place in 2002.

It's become more prevalent in recent times as the reliability of the cars' transmissions has improved to a point at which they can withstand repeated burnouts. I remember Martin Brundle saying that if he had tried to do that at the beginning of his career (mid-1980s), he would have caused the gearbox to break immediately, and it's certainly true that in this era, the drivers tended to tour round at a much slower and uniform pace.

As for the origins of the formation lap itself, I believe it originated at some point in the 1970s (but I'm really not too sure), probably at around the same time that event organisers started to use staggered starting grids and electric lights instead of a dropped national flag to start the race. Before this, the cars would line up on a "dummy grid" further back on the start-finish straight, than advance under the direction of the starter to the grid proper.

I myself have wondered - was the formation lap introduced as a safety measure? Completing a full lap (albeit at significantly reduced pace) gives a driver a much greater opportunity for a driver to find out if his car has a serious problem that could cause trouble at the start than a mere crawl of a hundred metres or so.

2) It's called wheel slip, every wheel will do this - that is what causes tyre wear - the more it slips the more it wears away. The tyres do not provide enough grip with the road so that it's like an exaggerated version of driving on ice!

And to add to your answer, the optimum wheel slip for a start is apparently 5%, for best traction.

Will we at any point see the FIA undoing regulations banning various devices for /methods of creating downfowrce if cars become "too slow" in the future?

Complete speculation here, but I predict not, as I believe that KERS and powertrain regulation will be the primary means of controlling the relative speed of the future formula, particularly if the current 2014 engine regulations are adhered to.

A year or so ago, it appeared that limited ground effect might have returned as part of the 2014 technical changes, but unfortunately these have long since been dropped, along with (more recently) other significant planned changes to the regulations governing the cars' aerodynamics and bodywork, which means that the current general shape of the cars (and the DRS) is here to stay!

In fact, on current form, the FIA is likely to continue banning any "clever tricks" which enable a team to achieve more downforce than the current levels, e.g. exhaust-blown diffusers, double DRS etc...

Just had a look at the start of the 1980 British GP - it had a formation lap (at the French GP just before we still had the 'dummy grid' procedure) and yes, cars were weaving around heating their tyres! No burnouts BTW - and you won't believe how almost randomly cars took their grid positions those days.

And as always those years, a good look showed that about half the field already moved before the flag fell.

I thought (under ideal conditions) that no wheel slip is the best? Is there a reason why 5% is good? To heat up the tyres?

Tyres need deflection to create grip. Newton's laws. Just like how there must be a slip angle between the road and the tyre for the tyre to turn, there must be some slip between the amount of spin and road speed.

I don't know if it's really a stupid question, but I haven't really found any decent explanations... how were the LMP2 Penske Porsche RS Spyders able to race toe to toe with the LMP1 Audis?

Dunno but I think it was because the LMP2 cars were lighter and performed well on tracks with more curves and shorter straights... compared to the Le Mans track that is, which has a long straight or few.

Found this on Wikipedia:

"With the ALMS's P2-favouring track nature, the Penske racing Porsche RS Spyder outperformed the Audi R10 TDI in the 2007 American Le Mans Series season, scoring 8 overall wins against Audi's 4. For 2008, the minimum weight of LMP2 cars were raised to 825 kg, and fuel tank capacity limit was brought down to 80L."

What would happen if Bernie Ecclestone died all of a sudden or would be arrested and committed to the german autorities. Who will replace him then?

I doubt even Bernie himself knows the answer to that question.

However, in my mind they need someone who knows the world of F1 very well, who has achieved success in F1 and business. Someone who is like Bernie - ruthless, hungry for power, dictator like and willing to go beyond what's considered appropriate (if Bernie is convicted) to get the results that are needed. Only one name springs to mind: Flavio Briatore.

I just stumbled across this, 1964 Brand Hatch GP, i assume this is where the very early origins of the formation lap started!

"The cars form up on the dummy grid well down the straight in readiness to roll forward for the start at 30 seconds to go, an idea developed to reduce the hazard of dead engine collisions when the flag falls"

Yes, but now knowing Michelin (French company) are made in France, and Bridgestone (Japanese company) are made in Japan, one would assume that Pirelli's would be made in Italy. It just caught be off guard during the broadcast when I heard that they were made in Turkey, that's all.

Yes, but now knowing Michelin (French company) are made in France, and Bridgestone (Japanese company) are made in Japan, one would assume that Pirelli's would be made in Italy. It just caught be off guard during the broadcast when I heard that they were made in Turkey, that's all.

Welcome to globalization. You do know that, to pick a few, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi et al. don't build all of their cars in Germany, Chrysler does not build all of theirs in the US, and Apple does not build anything at home?

Welcome to globalization. You do know that, to pick a few, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi at al. don't build all of their cars in Germany, Chrysler does not build all of theirs in the US, and Apple does not build anything at home?

Indeed. Even the Ford Mustang has a lot of the production done outside the U.S. There are Japanese cars sold on the U.S. market that spend more time in U.S. manufacturing plants than many so-called "American cars" do.

I understand globalization and I realize most things are not made in the company's home country.... my thoughts were more along the lines of what Ross said, that the F1 tires are such a specific product. Thanks for the links.

"I think on one level Bernie [Ecclestone] does an amazingly good job of keeping people out, because it increases the fascination."But, on the other hand, people pay a lot of money to go to Silverstone, to subscribe to watch on satellite, and they deserve more access."As much as I admire Bernie, it is not him and it is not the teams that fund F1 - it is the fans. So why don't people get organised and demand a bit more?"